PDA

View Full Version : New Rick Morrissey Column


Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 12:14 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-031218morrissey,1,2076825.column?coll=cs-home-utility

All I can say is WOW. Does he have this situation pegged perfectly.

Lip

SluggersAway
12-19-2003, 12:27 AM
I don't care.

I love the sox.

Lot's of reasons to love it all besides the last year you won the pennant.

That euphoric championship feeling is very overrated and usually leads to rioting.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 12:35 AM
Slugger:

If you are being sarcastic your post needs to be in green.

If you're not all I can ask is 'are you sober?'

Lip

StillMissOzzie
12-19-2003, 01:22 AM
After Slezak's article in the Sun-Times, all I can say is, "Pour it on!" It's not like JR knows any shame, but the more his feet (and wallet) are held to the flames, the better.

:reinsy

"Go ahead, I can handle the heat."

SMO
:angry:

MarqSox
12-19-2003, 08:47 AM
It was a good column, aside from his ignoring the Scott Williamson component of the Ordonez-Garciaparra trade. It's not trading for a superstar that will leave in a year ... it's trading for a superstar that will leave in a year and a top-notch reliever that we'd probably extend, which is a huge difference.

Oh well. The crux of Morrissey's point was good.

Hokiesox
12-19-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
After Slezak's article in the Sun-Times, all I can say is, "Pour it on!" It's not like JR knows any shame, but the more his feet (and wallet) are held to the flames, the better.

:reinsy

"Go ahead, I can handle the heat."

SMO
:angry:

Why? It's not like he'd actually sell, like we all want him to.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 10:52 AM
Just another attack in the psychological war that the Cubune declared on Sox fans a couple of years ago.

Selected attack quotes:

"it has to do with being No. 2 in town"

"the Sox have been put on earth to be kicked around"

"The renovations, by the way, don't solve the upper-deck problem."

"Go cheap, as you are now while prettying up the stadium, and fed-up fans will stay away."

That's the Cubune's MO. Make sure Sox fans think they are #2, rip on the ballpark, and tell them to stay away from games.

They're so transparent, but obviously they have a lot of people fooled.

miker
12-19-2003, 10:53 AM
Wow, Morrissey's column was almost sympathetic to the plight of Sox fans...

CubKilla
12-19-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
It's not trading for a superstar that will leave in a year ... it's trading for a superstar that will leave in a year and a top-notch reliever that we'd probably extend, which is a huge difference.

Regardless of whether we keep Williamson from the Nomar/Maggs rumored deal, I'm still not impressed with keeping Williamson from it so I guess I would agree with Morrissey.

Some Sox fans seem to be reaching for something, ANYTHING good.

PaulDrake
12-19-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Just another attack in the psychological war that the Cubune declared on Sox fans a couple of years ago.

Selected attack quotes:

"it has to do with being No. 2 in town"

"the Sox have been put on earth to be kicked around"

"The renovations, by the way, don't solve the upper-deck problem."

"Go cheap, as you are now while prettying up the stadium, and fed-up fans will stay away."

That's the Cubune's MO. Make sure Sox fans think they are #2, rip on the ballpark, and tell them to stay away from games.

They're so transparent, but obviously they have a lot of people fooled. That kind of defensiveness gets us nowhere. Its the same bunker mentality of JR and his "braintrust." Read the article minus emotion and defensiveness. Just because he writes for the Trib doesn't mean there's not a lot of truth to what he says.

Soxfest
12-19-2003, 11:05 AM
Article was right on JR is cheap see ( OG ) and payroll of a Cinn team.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 11:09 AM
Some of you are just rolling over like they want you to. The distortions and lies of the Cubune are finally starting to take their toll on the Sox fan.

CubKilla
12-19-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Some of you are just rolling over like they want you to. The distortions and lies of the Cubune are finally starting to take their toll on the Sox fan.

No. JR's CHEAPNESS is "finally starting to take their toll on the Sox fan." Sox fans can see through the Tribune like Superman sees through lead.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Some of you are just rolling over like they want you to. The distortions and lies of the Cubune are finally starting to take their toll on the Sox fan.

No, it is the distortions, lies and downright cheapness of the owner that is taking its toll.

Tell me honestly where you see room for hope this coming season?

Are the Sox any closer to a pennant? Are they further away?

Prices are going up. Where's ours?

MarqSox
12-19-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Just another attack in the psychological war that the Cubune declared on Sox fans a couple of years ago.

Selected attack quotes:

"it has to do with being No. 2 in town"

"the Sox have been put on earth to be kicked around"

"The renovations, by the way, don't solve the upper-deck problem."

"Go cheap, as you are now while prettying up the stadium, and fed-up fans will stay away."

That's the Cubune's MO. Make sure Sox fans think they are #2, rip on the ballpark, and tell them to stay away from games.

They're so transparent, but obviously they have a lot of people fooled.
rdivaldi ... What there do you disagree with? Yeah, it's not pleasant, but it's all true.

The Sox ARE No. 2 in town. We're not inherently inferior, but we're treated that way I don't think you would disagree with that. And since perception is reality ...

The Sox ARE the proverbial whipping boys of sports. It's not fair, and it's not our fault, but it's the way it is.

The renovations DONT solve the actual problems with the upper deck. Yeah, it looks nicer, and it'll probably help attendance in the short-term ... but the upper deck is still as steep as it ever was.

The fed-up fans WILL stay away we go cheap. What makes you think otherwise? Fed-up fans stay away even when we're good, why would they come back when we're bad?

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 11:20 AM
So you guys know for a fact that we're being "cheap". There's undisputable evidence that the Sox have tens of millions of dollars that they could be spending on the payroll right now. It seems pretty coincidental that the Cubune has had their writers use the word "cheap" and JR constantly for the past 2 weeks.

I think you are a little nuts if you are giving up on the season on December 19th....

poorme
12-19-2003, 11:25 AM
I must be a lot nuts then, because I gave up on 2004 in October.

Hangar18
12-19-2003, 11:26 AM
Its an excellent Column ............. We NEED MANY MANY MORE OF THESE. Mariotti, when he feels like writing, Is VERY GOOD at pegging Reinsdorfs Cheapness and can Rip on Jerry with the best of them. We need the Cubune and Cub-Times to start the Psych War ............

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 11:31 AM
rdivaldi ... What there do you disagree with? Yeah, it's not pleasant, but it's all true.

Actually it's not true at all.

For instance this nonsense about being #2 in town. What is that? It's just another thing to beat you down. Why should a fan care if another team has more fans? It's completely on non-issue if you truly are a fan of a team. The Flubbies could draw 70,000 fans per game, and I'd still go to the Cell for my usual allotment of games. Call me #3 for all I care.

We aren't the whipping boys of sports, that's a complete exaggeration. We're the whipping boys of a couple of select "journalists" which makes people feel that way. That's not true at all. Do Oakland Raiders fans care that they are peceived as thugs?

If I'm not mistaken the upper deck slope got steeper the higher you got. Either way, it's a complete scam to say that something is going to be a failure before even experiencing it. That's just wrong. Remember how awful Soldier Field was going to be?

The fed up fans you speak of must not be Sox fans then. Why say you are a fan of a team if you don't support them?

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 11:34 AM
Its an excellent Column ............. We NEED MANY MANY MORE OF THESE. Mariotti, when he feels like writing, Is VERY GOOD at pegging Reinsdorfs Cheapness and can Rip on Jerry with the best of them. We need the Cubune and Cub-Times to start the Psych War ............

So basically you want the sports sections to be a bunch of subjective, non-fact driven, rumor mills.

I'd rather be informed than entertained, but that's just me.

thepaulbowski
12-19-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Its an excellent Column ............. We NEED MANY MANY MORE OF THESE. Mariotti, when he feels like writing, Is VERY GOOD at pegging Reinsdorfs Cheapness and can Rip on Jerry with the best of them. We need the Cubune and Cub-Times to start the Psych War ............

The media has been ripping JR for years, it doesn't do any good.

longshot7
12-19-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
No. JR's CHEAPNESS is "finally starting to take their toll on the Sox fan." Sox fans can see through the Tribune like Superman sees through lead.

umm...Superman can't see thru lead, so are you saying that Sox fans can't see thru the Tribune? I think it's clear we can, and do. Often.

Not to stray from the main topic, but I agree with Morrisey's point. Something is wrong when the Royals make more (and better) moves than the Sox during the offseason. Why can't JR increase the payroll - we're in Chicago, the #3 city in the country for chrissakes! The Angels just increased theirs to 90 mil. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same.

And I agree that the Trib isn't always balanced - okay, rarely - but I don't think this one of those instances. A good article. And true.

CubKilla
12-19-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
umm...Superman can't see thru lead, so are you saying that Sox fans can't see thru the Tribune? I think it's clear we can, and do. Often.

I thought he could. Oh well. I guess I should stay away from SuperHeroes I obviuosly know nothing about.

Your assertion is what I meant. Sox fans can see through all of the Tribune's BS.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 11:51 AM
I believe it's due to a strand of DNA that carries the genetic message, "We are, like, so doomed."

Tell me that this is not a way of convincing Sox fans that they have thier own curse. A way of beating you down and convincing you that your not even loveable losers, just losers.

I've been a Sox fan all my life, and all my life I can remember my team playing second fiddle in Chicago. I can handle being #2, I agree with rdivaldi on this, why should this matter to us? Do you still cling to that highschool desire to be the "cool-guy" in town?

It is all subjective, just like all the garbage journalism produced by the trib.

The rampant negativity on this board is unbelievable. Some of you claim to be negative because you are "informed" or because you are "being honest about the situation." You call our owner cheap but fail to show the large stash of cash he is sitting on. I have yet to see anything but circumstantial evidence that he has ever shortchanged any of you, or that he is purposely, vindictively tanking the White Sox organization.

I don't need to be negative to be honest, or to think critically about this situation, but I fail to see any evidence that what is in this article, and in many of your minds, is not just garbage.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Tell me that this is not a way of convincing Sox fans that they have thier own curse. A way of beating you down and convincing you that your not even loveable losers, just losers.

I've been a Sox fan all my life, and all my life I can remember my team playing second fiddle in Chicago. I can handle being #2, I agree with rdivaldi on this, why should this matter to us? Do you still cling to that highschool desire to be the "cool-guy" in town?

It is all subjective, just like all the garbage journalism produced by the trib.

The rampant negativity on this board is unbelievable. Some of you claim to be negative because you are "informed" or because you are "being honest about the situation." You call our owner cheap but fail to show the large stash of cash he is sitting on. I have yet to see anything but circumstantial evidence that he has ever shortchanged any of you, or that he is purposely, vindictively tanking the White Sox organization.

I don't need to be negative to be honest, or to think critically about this situation, but I fail to see any evidence that what is in this article, and in many of your minds, is not just garbage.

Maybe it is the previous 22 years of cheapness that are influencing our thoughts and opinions. It isn't like this is the first off season where the Sox have gone cheap...

joecrede
12-19-2003, 11:59 AM
Rivaldi is right.

Whether or not what Morissey or any other Trib columnist writes is true about the White Sox or Cubs, the incredible conflict of interest that exists must be taken into account when reading it.

The very least the Tribune should do is acknowledge they are the owners of the Cubs at the end of every article/column that mentions either the Sox or Cubs.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 12:03 PM
Basically I think everyone should think for themselves and not be influenced by a couple of hacks.

Voodoo is right, there are plenty of instances where we've gone "cheap". But in this instance, I wonder what the truth is. There are a lot of columnists jumping on the cheap bandwagon without any evidence. Why should anyone believe these people, especially when the ringleader is an admitted Sox hater, and the others work for the organization that owns our entertainment $$$ competitor?

I truly believe that the Cubune wages a psychological war on the Sox fan. They make sure to use phrases and headlines to demoralize us and beat us down. I think it's starting to take its toll.

Take it for what it's worth, but I'd rather fight than roll over.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Take it for what it's worth, but I'd rather fight than roll over.

Then direct your energy where it will do some good. Let JR know that you don't accept his actions via letters, calls, e-mails and with your wallet.

It isn't the Trib's fault that JR has built himself an expensive (by his standards) average ball club and won't put out the money to try and get them over the hump in an exceedingly average division.

It isn't like the Twins and Royals are unbeatable, but the Sox would rather try and slide by them on the cheap then to spend the money to put the team in the driver's seat.

Even if they do manage to win the ALC, does anyone think this team as currently constructed can win the WS? Man have I got some great property 10 miles due east of downtown to show you and it's really really cheap...

habibharu
12-19-2003, 12:21 PM
i agree with rdivaldi. we arent the second team in town! in terms of attendence yes. but who f***** cares about attendence! im not reinsdorf. i dont make money if more people go to the game. im a sox fan and i dont care about anything except the how the team does. i could care less about what the radio,TV, or print media percieve the sox to be! as long as the cubs suck, which they always will, we arent the second team in town!

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Maybe it is the previous 22 years of cheapness that are influencing our thoughts and opinions. It isn't like this is the first off season where the Sox have gone cheap...

I lived through the last 22 years myself. I'm not saying that it is pure bliss to be a Sox fan. But there is a difference between a fan and a critic.

KW comments in today's article (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20031218&content_id=620776&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) on MLB.com are relevant to me.

"It's funny how things turn around. The same player they didn't like when I brought him in (Gordon), I'm now being criticized for not bringing him back."

Translation... Everyones a critic. Or like my Dad says opinoins are like ____, some just stinks worse than others.

To reiterate from my previous post I still fail to see where JR is hording all the cash. If he says the payroll is $58m and you say he can spend more than that, then please prove it. I would appreciate it.

joecrede
12-19-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Even if they do manage to win the ALC, does anyone think this team as currently constructed can win the WS?

I'd imagine there are fans of 14 other teams in the A.L. that don't believe their teams can win the ALCS much less the World Series.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 12:30 PM
Then direct your energy where it will do some good. Let JR know that you don't accept his actions via letters, calls, e-mails and with your wallet.

I love going to ballgames, so I'm not willing to sacrifice one of my favorite things to do in Summer. I also have no evidence in my possession right now to prove the "cheap" theories to be untrue or true.

I consider Morrissey's comments to be nothing but status quo for the Cubune hit men. Confuse us, make us angry, have us not go to the ballpark.

However, I do fully trust in you guys to raise these questions at SoxFest though. The results should be interesting.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
To reiterate from my previous post I still fail to see where JR is hording all the cash. If he says the payroll is $58m and you say he can spend more than that, then please prove it. I would appreciate it.

Why would you take that at face value?

In addition, in the easily winnable ALC, why limit yourself to an arbitrary number when a few more $M might make the difference?

Beyond all of that, when is JR going to start spending the money to bring in competent experience for the GM and manager roles? If the problem is lack of cash to spend, then find a guy who doesn't make whomping huge mistakes when signing people that hamstring the team in future years.

To date every single FA acquisition from 2003 has walked away from the Sox this fall. How can the fans feel enthused about next season under circumstances like that?

I'll say it again... If JR cannot afford to run this team like a big market club then please sell to someone who will...

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I'd imagine there are fans of 14 other teams in the A.L. that don't believe their teams can win the ALCS much less the World Series.

So we should be sheep too?

I'll start, you finish...

BAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH (Humbug)

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 12:48 PM
I'll say it again... If JR cannot afford to run this team like a big market club then please sell to someone who will...

That's one argument that I believe is more complicated than we give it credit for. Sure it would be nice for some billionaire to come in and take over the Sox and spend $100 million on payroll, etc.

However let's face reality, who is going to want to buy this team? Investors are motivated by the bottom line, and it's not too good for this organization. Just look at the sub 2 million attendance in 2000-2003. Look at the angry fans and the terrible media coverage. Look at the fact that baseball is the least profitable of the 3 major sports in this country (sorry hockey fans). Why would someone want to dump tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into that kind of venture?

I wouldn't do it...

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
That's one argument that I believe is more complicated than we give it credit for. Sure it would be nice for some billionaire to come in and take over the Sox and spend $100 million on payroll, etc.

However let's face reality, who is going to want to buy this team? Investors are motivated by the bottom line, and it's not too good for this organization. Just look at the sub 2 million attendance in 2000-2003. Look at the angry fans and the terrible media coverage. Look at the fact that baseball is the least profitable of the 3 major sports in this country (sorry hockey fans). Why would someone want to dump tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into that kind of venture?

I wouldn't do it...

Okay, now you will need to provide proof that the team is actually losing money.

Heck, on Capital increase alone the unrealized profit exceeds the Dow's return since JR bought the team.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Why would you take that at face value?

In addition, in the easily winnable ALC, why limit yourself to an arbitrary number when a few more $M might make the difference?

Beyond all of that, when is JR going to start spending the money to bring in competent experience for the GM and manager roles? If the problem is lack of cash to spend, then find a guy who doesn't make whomping huge mistakes when signing people that hamstring the team in future years.

To date every single FA acquisition from 2003 has walked away from the Sox this fall. How can the fans feel enthused about next season under circumstances like that?

I'll say it again... If JR cannot afford to run this team like a big market club then please sell to someone who will...

How else am I supposed to take it?

Your desire to field a winning Sox team next year are shared by me, I promise you. But if you feel that the only thing keeping this team down is JR, then you have merely selected the most guilty party in your mind.

Short of firing JM earlier in the season JR & KW did a good job of putting the Sox in a position to compete last season. JM and the Sox players are guilty of shattering our postseason dreams, not JR.

Every GM makes mistakes. But is always having a surplus of payroll to make the mistakes on FA's the solution? Some FA's fall as flat on their faces as players you sign to big deals. It's all a gamble. Konerko could have been a superstar, just like Jamie Navarro.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 12:58 PM
Okay, now you will need to provide proof that the team is actually losing money.

I have none, only what baseball reported in 2002. You definitely could be right.

Heck, on Capital increase alone the unrealized profit exceeds the Dow's return since JR bought the team.

Now that I can agree with. When the investment group sells the team, they are in-line for a big payout. I think I read that the value of the team is now over $300 million.

Maybe one of us can fake out the organization and say we're interested in buying the team, but want to see the books first.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
How else am I supposed to take it?

Your desire to field a winning Sox team next year are shared by me, I promise you. But if you feel that the only thing keeping this team down is JR, then you have merely selected the most guilty party in your mind.

Short of firing JM earlier in the season JR & KW did a good job of putting the Sox in a position to compete last season. JM and the Sox players are guilty of shattering our postseason dreams, not JR.

Every GM makes mistakes. But is always having a surplus of payroll to make the mistakes on FA's the solution? Some FA's fall as flat on their faces as players you sign to big deals. It's all a gamble. Konerko could have been a superstar, just like Jamie Navarro.

I have no problem with the way the team was run last season. I do have a problem when the Sox decide to let every single one of the FA's they acquired walk away...

Iwritecode
12-19-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
However let's face reality, who is going to want to buy this team? Investors are motivated by the bottom line, and it's not too good for this organization. Just look at the sub 2 million attendance in 2000-2003. Look at the angry fans and the terrible media coverage. Look at the fact that baseball is the least profitable of the 3 major sports in this country (sorry hockey fans). Why would someone want to dump tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into that kind of venture?

I wouldn't do it...

All anyone has to do is put a winning team on the field. With the way the division is shaping up right now, it shouldn't take that much effort or $$$.

Sox fans are dying for a winning team and even more so for a consistently winning team. We've proven this in 2000 and even last year. When the team wins, we show up. If the team can start winnning consistently, $$$ would be the least of the owners worries...

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I have no problem with the way the team was run last season. I do have a problem when the Sox decide to let every single one of the FA's they acquired walk away...

I think it is unfair to say they let them all walk away.

They took a shot at resigning a few. If your opinion is that those were token attempts, then I can see your point. But I think they honestly tried with Colon, and made a fair offer to Flash.

I'm upset about letting Graf and Sully walk away, Graf would have been a big help if we are honestly going to let Uribe & Harris play 2B, and our bullpen is in trouble. Those two seemed like money well spent to me, even though you can argue there is a cheaper alternative to both players.

I'm glad Everett is gone, his career numbers and reputation don't support paying him that big of a salary.

Waiving Daubach gives me the sinking feeling that PK isn't going anywhere.

I still think it's a bit early for Sox fans to feel like they are on the deck of the Titanic. The moves the Royals and Twins have made have not put them in the drivers seat in the Central.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 01:19 PM
Sox fans are dying for a winning team and even more so for a consistently winning team. We've proven this in 2000 and even last year. When the team wins, we show up. If the team can start winnning consistently, $$$ would be the least of the owners worries...

Sorry IWC I can't agree with that. Our attendance was pathetic in 2000 for a team with the best record in the AL. How many times did we see the Cubune start off a story in 2000, with "before a disappointing crowd of 25,000".

Our season ticket sales were just as disappointing in 2001.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Sorry IWC I can't agree with that. Our attendance was pathetic in 2000 for a team with the best record in the AL. How many times did we see the Cubune start off a story in 2000, with "before a disappointing crowd of 25,000".

Our season ticket sales were just as disappointing in 2001.

Have you looked at the attendance figures for 1998 and 1999? The Sox increased full price sales by almost 50% from those previous years. It isn't even close.

Why are you now using the Tribune to defend your points?

Iwritecode
12-19-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Sorry IWC I can't agree with that. Our attendance was pathetic in 2000 for a team with the best record in the AL. How many times did we see the Cubune start off a story in 2000, with "before a disappointing crowd of 25,000".

Our season ticket sales were just as disappointing in 2001.

I'm not sure the second-largest increase in MLB from the previous year can be considered pathetic. The only other team with a bigger increase from 1999 was the Mariners and that was because of their new stadium.

Nobody expected the team to do anything that year so the season ticket sales were obviously quite low. The increase came from mostly walk-up sales. That's not an easy thing to do. 2001 was the exact opposite. Season ticket sales went up but when the team started getting injured and it was obvious they weren't going to have a repeat year, the walk-up sales weren't there.

It's very difficult to get attendance to jump from 1.3 million to over 2 million in the course of one season when nobody expects anything from the team.

ericiii
12-19-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26

The rampant negativity on this board is unbelievable. Some of you claim to be negative because you are "informed" or because you are "being honest about the situation." You call our owner cheap but fail to show the large stash of cash he is sitting on. I have yet to see anything but circumstantial evidence that he has ever shortchanged any of you, or that he is purposely, vindictively tanking the White Sox organization.

I don't need to be negative to be honest, or to think critically about this situation, but I fail to see any evidence that what is in this article, and in many of your minds, is not just garbage.

I'm usually a lurker on this board, but this reply bothered me because I read a while back that the Sox made 40million in 2003 on broadcasting rights alone. Now combine that with ticket sales, advertising within the stadium, vendor items (I'm sure we get some profit), parking, souveneirs, and other rights to the White Sox name with memorabilia have to put us well well above 58 million.

poorme
12-19-2003, 01:39 PM
It's been spelled out a million different times. JR is making a ton of money when you consider operating profits and long term asset appreciation.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by ericiii
I'm usually a lurker on this board, but this reply bothered me because I read a while back that the Sox made 40million in 2003 on broadcasting rights alone. Now combine that with ticket sales, advertising within the stadium, vendor items (I'm sure we get some profit), parking, souveneirs, and other rights to the White Sox name with memorabilia have to put us well well above 58 million.

I can't speak to the $40m your talking about because I did not read that article, if you could provide a link, I'd appreciate it. As to the other areas you mentoined that put us well over $58m, is it fair to assume that $58 plus million dollars automatically translates into spendable cash?

It seems unfair to me to use a collection of assumptions to determine that JR is creating a $58m budget in his mind.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by poorme
It's been spelled out a million different times. JR is making a ton of money when you consider operating profits and long term asset appreciation.

I'm fairly new around here, so kindly provide me a link to the threads your speaking about. But since I wasn't around for those discussions, I have to ask.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 01:45 PM
Folks:

A few points....

Soxfan26. You state that for most of your life the Sox have been #2. Perhaps that's part of the problem...you don't know any better. I do. I remember the late 50's and through the mid 60's when the Cubs were a joke, an afterthought among most Chicagoans.

The Sox are now in a position that they are in because of some things that were outside of their control, but more importantly because of many many mistakes, PR disasters and events that they could have controlled but didn't.

Joe Crede, as to the Tribune's conflict of interest. You want them to acknowledge it. They already have. Please go back and re read the interviews with me from Bob Vanderberg and Phil Rogers. Frankly after some of Rogers' comments about it, I thought he was going to get into trouble from his bosses (and told him that but he said to print it anyway...)

Finally to all who continue to ask for proof that JR is making money hand over foot, I ask (again) for the same courtesy...prove to me he is NOT. I have tried to offer what evidence that I could quoting articles, books, Forbes Business and interviews. I don't know what more I can do then look at the books myself. (Which the Sox won't allow me to do and I wouldn't understand anyway.) Joe Crede has been the only one to provide some info to this point. He apparently knows folks who monitor the Sox finances and they have told him the Sox are losing money.

He trusts them, which is his right. I don't because like many of you, I don't know those people and have no reason to think they would tell an outsider (with respect Joe) the truth anyway.

I think one thing we can agree on is this, for whatever reason, it has been years since this franchise has made consistent progress on all fronts in the Chicago area, both on the field and off the field. For whatever reason, it isn't working. Perhaps at this point the only thing that could steer this franchise into a better situation is new owenership with new thinking, new ideas and new money.

Whether you agree with Reinsdorf or not, after 23 years of ownership the entire opearation has stagnated. It's time for a radicle change.

Lip

Iwritecode
12-19-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I can't speak to the $40m your talking about because I did not read that article, if you could provide a link, I'd appreciate it. As to the other areas you mentoined that put us well over $58m, is it fair to assume that $58 plus million dollars automatically translates into spendable cash?

It seems unfair to me to use a collection of assumptions to determine that JR is creating a $58m budget in his mind.

I'd assume that the 58 million is a 'safe' budget. He should be able to cover that with no problem even if the team ends up in third place and only draws 1.5 in attendance.

The problem is that he's unwilling to take a chance and spend a little more in the hopes that the extra money would bring more talent which would equal more wins and higher attendance which would in turn, cover the cost of the higher payroll.

He'd rather play is safe and HOPE that something good happens.

(Sorry about the horrible run-on sentence...)

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 01:54 PM
Daver's last column here at WSI, had a methodical, mathematical breakdown of revenue generated and outside interest that factor into the Sox finances. It may be worth re reading.

Lip

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I'd assume that the 58 million is a 'safe' budget. He should be able to cover that with no problem even if the team ends up in third place and only draws 1.5 in attendance.

The problem is that he's unwilling to take a chance and spend a little more in the hopes that the extra money would bring more talent which would equal more wins and higher attendance which would in turn, cover the cost of the higher payroll.

He'd rather play is safe and HOPE that something good happens.

(Sorry about the horrible run-on sentence...)

My thoughts exactly. I think JR is a good businessman and that makes him deplorable to Sox fans that want 27 world series banners flying in the OF.

With that in mind, I wish a trillionare would ride in on his white horse and save the organization.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Daver's last column here at WSI, had a methodical, mathematical breakdown of revenue generated and outside interest that factor into the Sox finances. It may be worth re reading.

Lip

didn't read it, so it will be hard to re read it. Where can I find it?

raul12
12-19-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
My thoughts exactly. I think JR is a good businessman and that makes him deplorable to Sox fans that want 27 world series banners flying in the OF.

With that in mind, I wish a trillionare would ride in on his white horse and save the organization.

I don't want 27 WS championships (although it would be nice). I just want two things:

1. A WS championship
2. Do it before the cubs do it.

What mystifies me about JR is that seeing as he IS probably a good businessman, he should see that if the cubs win a WS first, his investment is going to tank. However, if he wins it first, he'll be raking in money hand over fist b/c this city WILL become a Sox town if the Sox win it first.

If JR wants a guaranteed return on his investment, he can stick it in a CD and get his measly 3%. If you want more than that, there are risks. Hell, we take more risks with our IRA's every day, but we're not made of millions. So JR, as they always say, it takes money to make money.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxfan26. You state that for most of your life the Sox have been #2. Perhaps that's part of the problem...you don't know any better. I do. I remember the late 50's and through the mid 60's when the Cubs were a joke, an afterthought among most Chicagoans.

If your talking strictly about the battle for #1 in the city you may be right.

But it seems that the "glory days" of the late '50's and early-mid '60's were less productive than the 90's minus a world series appearance. The only difference was we played second to the Yankees and Indians instead of the Cubs.

joecrede
12-19-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe Crede, as to the Tribune's conflict of interest. You want them to acknowledge it. They already have. Please go back and re read the interviews with me from Bob Vanderberg and Phil Rogers. Frankly after some of Rogers' comments about it, I thought he was going to get into trouble from his bosses (and told him that but he said to print it anyway...)

Whenever CNBC has a story involving General Electric they always add the disclaimer that CNBC is a subsidiary of GE at the end. I think the Tribune should do the same kind of thing in articles about the Cubs or Sox.

Finally to all who continue to ask for proof that JR is making money hand over foot, I ask (again) for the same courtesy...prove to me he is NOT. I have tried to offer what evidence that I could quoting articles, books, Forbes Business and interviews. I don't know what more I can do then look at the books myself. (Which the Sox won't allow me to do and I wouldn't understand anyway.) Joe Crede has been the only one to provide some info to this point. He apparently knows folks who monitor the Sox finances and they have told him the Sox are losing money.

I think you mean gosox41.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Finally to all who continue to ask for proof that JR is making money hand over foot, I ask (again) for the same courtesy...prove to me he is NOT. I have tried to offer what evidence that I could quoting articles, books, Forbes Business and interviews. I don't know what more I can do then look at the books myself. (Which the Sox won't allow me to do and I wouldn't understand anyway.) Joe Crede has been the only one to provide some info to this point. He apparently knows folks who monitor the Sox finances and they have told him the Sox are losing money.

I think one thing we can agree on is this, for whatever reason, it has been years since this franchise has made consistent progress on all fronts in the Chicago area, both on the field and off the field. For whatever reason, it isn't working. Perhaps at this point the only thing that could steer this franchise into a better situation is new owenership with new thinking, new ideas and new money.

Whether you agree with Reinsdorf or not, after 23 years of ownership the entire opearation has stagnated. It's time for a radicle change.

Lip

From a fans perspective your right on the money. i would like nothing more than an Atlanta Braves style run of division titles over the next decade. Or even just one WS ring in that same time span.

I recognize from your posts that your an intelligent person who has some very strong opinions about why the Sox are where they are. Forgive me for not just jumping on board with you. Maybe the fact is that I am naive, and JR has been pulling the wool over my eyes. But like the man said show me the money. I want to see the smoking gun.

Because as far as I am concerned the last 22 years have been right on par with the history of this organization.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
From a fans perspective your right on the money. i would like nothing more than an Atlanta Braves style run of division titles over the next decade. Or even just one WS ring in that same time span.

I recognize from your posts that your an intelligent person who has some very strong opinions about why the Sox are where they are. Forgive me for not just jumping on board with you. Maybe the fact is that I am naive, and JR has been pulling the wool over my eyes. But like the man said show me the money. I want to see the smoking gun.

Because as far as I am concerned the last 22 years have been right on par with the history of this organization.

You want to see the money, all you have to do is look at the increase in capital that the team has generated over JR's reign. Barring any profit on a year by year basis, the owners have still multiplied their initial investment value by a factor of 10 and some say 15.

Like I said, that is barring any earnings on a year by year basis. So even if they are only breaking even yearly (I want to include any salary paid to JR as profit, BTW) they are still making money as well as anyone in the Stock market over the same period of time.

If that isn't enough to convince you that the Sox are profitable and JR is a lying bastard than nothing I know will.

ericiii
12-19-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I can't speak to the $40m your talking about because I did not read that article, if you could provide a link, I'd appreciate it. As to the other areas you mentoined that put us well over $58m, is it fair to assume that $58 plus million dollars automatically translates into spendable cash?

It seems unfair to me to use a collection of assumptions to determine that JR is creating a $58m budget in his mind.

I can't find the numbers for 2003, but I did find 2001 which were 30 million. Heres the link

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290777.html

Baby Fisk
12-19-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
From a fans perspective your right on the money. i would like nothing more than an Atlanta Braves style run of division titles over the next decade. Or even just one WS ring in that same time span.

You just hit the nerve that causes every single one of us grief. Years of fanhood, years of hoping, years of short-lived optimism, all sound and fury, rewarded by NOTHING. Being a Sox fan means different things to different people. But it is NEVER EASY. We've all taken the ribbings, we've all loved seeing the team in first place in September. We all have great memories, but ultimately, it's all darkened by the absence of a WS title. It's sickening enough to watch the Yankees buy one title after another, but a lot of bitterness in recent years stems from watching "smaller" teams like Florida, Anaheim, and (for the love of God!) ARIZONA make a quick dash for a title. This buys YEARS of goodwill from the fan base and would do the same for Chicago and Sox fans everywhere. So where is the problem? JR having/not having enough money? GMs who can't make the right moves or who have to work in a straight-jacket? Media bias? Fan apathy? The 1919 curse? Whatever it is, all of us can agree on one thing: a WS title will sweep all of that away. But if it were easy, it would have happened in 1921, 1959, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1993, 2000, etc . The franchise would have a bucket full of those flaggy-trophy things. But we don't. However, the fact that you are still here reading this means you still have at least a shred of hope. It's the one thing that keeps us coming back. The one thing that unites us. We've all caught ourselves envisioning that WS-winning play, or dreaming about what we'd do the day after the Sox win the WS. If that hope can somehow translate into action or investment or dealmaking that produces a WS title, somebody patent the formula and make yourself a ka-jillionaire. It ain't easy being green; It ain't easy being a Sox fan either. That's why you see a hell of a lot of rage on this site. Call it mass therapy...
:therapy:

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 02:49 PM
Roster payrolls are only part of the cost of running a professional sports team. Don't forget paying the staff, minor league costs, advertising costs, etc....

Until there is concrete evidence, I don't think either side of the money argument can claim that JR is keeping a tight budget or making money left and right.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Roster payrolls are only part of the cost of running a professional sports team. Don't forget paying the staff, minor league costs, advertising costs, etc....

Until there is concrete evidence, I don't think either side of the money argument can claim that JR is keeping a tight budget or making money left and right.

Not until he sells and then he will have made money left and right for the past 23 years.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 02:55 PM
Soxfan 26 (and others):

Here is the link to Daver's financial analysis story:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2410

also Sox fan 26 with respect I don't think the Sox have even come close to matching their success from the 50's & 60's. here's two examples:

From 1951 through 1967 the Sox had 17 consecutive winning seasons, all of them in the first division against tougher and better compitition.

From 1963 through 1965 the Sox averaged 96 wins.

Since current ownership (simply as a measuring stick) the most consective winning season for the Sox has been 5 (90 - 94). The Sox were a very good team in the early 90's, but they were a very bad team in the mis 80's and late 90's. In my opinion, there is no comparison in the success between the two time periods.

Lip

doublem23
12-19-2003, 03:06 PM
Another overrated Chicago sports columnist "enlightening" the rest of the world to what we already know. Jeez, isn't it time Mariotti and Downey write something like this?

Pfft... I could have written that and I'm barely literate.

joecrede
12-19-2003, 03:07 PM
Daver's article is largely based on assumptions. Educated assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 03:09 PM
Not until he sells and then he will have made money left and right for the past 23 years.

Which comes back to a point I made before, why would anyone want to buy this team?

duke of dorwood
12-19-2003, 03:10 PM
Be around this mediocrity and whining as long as I, then tell me how to feel, OK?

:reinsy

Fans come out? I cash in

Fans dont come out-free rent

Life is beautiful for me

doublem23
12-19-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Which comes back to a point I made before, why would anyone want to buy this team?

To make money.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Which comes back to a point I made before, why would anyone want to buy this team?

Did you miss the part about making money left and right in the quote you responded to?

Why wouldn't a person want to buy the Sox? I mean this is a team that is begging for a new image, a new face, a new way of doing business. There are a bunch of fans out there who will spend to see a winner. It just will take someone with some vision and guts to make it happen. JR is not that man...

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Soxfan 26 (and others):

also Sox fan 26 with respect I don't think the Sox have even come close to matching their success from the 50's & 60's. here's two examples:

From 1951 through 1967 the Sox had 17 consecutive winning seasons, all of them in the first division against tougher and better compitition.

From 1963 through 1965 the Sox averaged 96 wins.

Since current ownership (simply as a measuring stick) the most consective winning season for the Sox has been 5 (90 - 94). The Sox were a very good team in the early 90's, but they were a very bad team in the mis 80's and late 90's. In my opinion, there is no comparison in the success between the two time periods.

Lip

Thanks for the link to Daver's story. I will read it.

I guess you have a point if the measuring stick for success in MLB were winning percentage or average wins over a time period. It may be a nostalgic time period for you, but it does not seem to have done much for the Sox in terms of respectability. You rarely hear someone say "And the Sox have not had a WS appearance in 44 years, but damn they were good in '63"

Paulwny
12-19-2003, 03:24 PM
Some mlb owners claim they lose money every year, but every year the value of their team increases. Is there another business where this occurs? Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend big bucks to buy a business that loses money?

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by ericiii
I can't find the numbers for 2003, but I did find 2001 which were 30 million. Heres the link

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290777.html

Thanks for the link, and for joining in the discussion.

By that report on ESPN, the Sox revenue in 2001 was $60.99m

I just found thier 2002 payroll (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/04/03/salaries_white.sox_ap/) to be $57.29m

So that leaves JR with a net profit of 3.7m, assuming that it was not used for another team related expense that does not show up.

It boild down to weather or not you think the owner is responsible for dipping into his own money, or taking no pay in order to field a winning team.

This is before I've read Daver's article, but it seems to me in this quick example it is just as likely that JR lost money from '01-'02

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 03:27 PM
Why wouldn't a person want to buy the Sox? I mean this is a team that is begging for a new image, a new face, a new way of doing business. There are a bunch of fans out there who will spend to see a winner.

But isn't that "pie in the sky" thinking? What guarantee would there be to a new owner that this team could generate money hand over fist? Very few people are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a team that can't draw 2 mllion fans in a season that they make the playoffs.

I agree with you that there are a lot of fans out there that would spend some $$$ if a winner came to town. But let's face it, there are a lot of ifs involved.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
But isn't that "pie in the sky" thinking? What guarantee would there be to a new owner that this team could generate money hand over fist? Very few people are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a team that can't draw 2 mllion fans in a season that they make the playoffs.

I agree with you that there are a lot of fans out there that would spend some $$$ if a winner came to town. But let's face it, there are a lot of ifs involved.

There are no guarantees, but it isn't hard to do the basic math and say, "This team needs a new way to market itself. Something is being done wrong and has been for a long time." Heck, you can bet that the minute JR sells there will be Sox fans coming out of the woodwork. He is the number one marketing problem with this team.

But, beyojnd that, there is still profit to be made on capital increases. If the team doesn't turn a yearly profit then at the end of 5 years or 10 years or whatever, they can turn it over to someone else and take their profit by selling the team for more than they bought it for. The value of a professional sports team INSIDE the city limits of the 3rd largest market in America is NOT going to devalue.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Heck, you can bet that the minute JR sells there will be Sox fans coming out of the woodwork. He is the number one marketing problem with this team.

I think it is silly to assume that every White Sox fans cares as deeply about the financial issues of the team as we all do.

I would say there are several casual fans out there who don't even know who the GM is.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 03:53 PM
I think it is silly to assume that every White Sox fans cares as deeply about the financial issues of the team as we all do.

I can agree with that, we're all pretty involved with the day to day movements of our team.

I would say there are several casual fans out there who don't even know who the GM is.

These are also the people that will be easily affected by the slander and innuendo of newspapers and television in regards to the Sox.

"What? [insert Tribune columnist here] said there were 25,000 empty blue seats at the game? Well, maybe we shouldn't go to the game tomorrow....."

It's as easy as that.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I think it is silly to assume that every White Sox fans cares as deeply about the financial issues of the team as we all do.

I would say there are several casual fans out there who don't even know who the GM is.

What's your point?

Fans will celebrate the day the man who brought the Sox, Sportsvision, The White Flag Trade, the ballmall, the strike, constant whining, constant blaming the fans, payroll cuts, cheap managers, cheap GM's and who actively gave the city to the flubbies is no longer affiliated with the team.

The animosity for JR is off the charts for some people. Many of them will never come back until he sells...

:selljerry

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 04:00 PM
I know my cousins who live in the burbs and grew up in the city did not know that Konerko had a bad year last year. They are 4 college educated grown people who like to go to baseball games because they can go with my uncles, they could care less who plays 2nd base, let alone who owns the team.

I would say there are several fans out there who are just the same, they go to the games because they like baseball, and they like rooting for the Sox.

Then there are others like rdivaldi who will not let his disappointment with the team interfere with one of his favorite pastimes.

Most Americans are not disciplined enough to stop eating Cheetos or smoking when they know it is bad for them and you want me to believe that they are all deeply principled about who owns the White Sox?

You may have surrounded yourself with an educated group of baseball fans who care about what is going on, as a matter of fact that is why I joined this site, but don't assume that the masses really care.

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I know my cousins who live in the burbs and grew up in the city did not know that Konerko had a bad year last year. They are 4 college educated grown people who like to go to baseball games because they can go with my uncles, they could care less who plays 2nd base, let alone who owns the team.

I would say there are several fans out there who are just the same, they go to the games because they like baseball, and they like rooting for the Sox.

Then there are others like rdivaldi who will not let his disappointment with the team interfere with one of his favorite pastimes.

Most Americans are not disciplined enough to stop eating Cheetos or smoking when they know it is bad for them and you want me to believe that they are all deeply principled about who owns the White Sox?

You may have surrounded yourself with an educated group of baseball fans who care about what is going on, as a matter of fact that is why I joined this site, but don't assume that the masses really care.

Ah, but those educated fans the ones who truly do care are the ones who make other Sox fans either by breeding or word of mouth. When the diehards are convinced that the organization is rotting from the head down, it isn't long until the fan base starts to die...

Honestly, what has JR done that is fan friendly in the last 23 years?

Name some things that make this organization better or more fun to watch than their crosstown rivals.

It has been one punch in the chops after another going back to Sportsvision. Until that trend reverses itself, the fans aren't going to break their necks getting to the ballpark...

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 04:05 PM
Most Americans are not disciplined enough to stop eating Cheetos or smoking when they know it is bad for them and you want me to believe that they are all deeply principled about who owns the White Sox?

That's hysterical :D:

But think to yourself how many people you know that just don't know much about baseball, the inner workings of organizations, etc. How many people flock out to the sewer on the north side because someone told them it was a "shrine to baseball". (psychological warfare) I don't know many in the city that remember Sportsvision or the "White Flag Trade", or know what the ballmall is. (It really disturbs me that TWO Kotex Boy creations are listed here. More psychological warfare)

The people that post on this board are a rare breed.

Iwritecode
12-19-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I can agree with that, we're all pretty involved with the day to day movements of our team.



These are also the people that will be easily affected by the slander and innuendo of newspapers and television in regards to the Sox.

"What? [insert Tribune columnist here] said there were 25,000 empty blue seats at the game? Well, maybe we shouldn't go to the game tomorrow....."

It's as easy as that.

Winning solves everything. It's on JR and KW to figure out how to do that...

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Ah, but those educated fans the ones who truly do care are the ones who make other Sox fans either by breeding or word of mouth. When the diehards are convinced that the organization is rotting from the head down, it isn't long until the fan base starts to die...

Honestly, what has JR done that is fan friendly in the last 23 years?

Name some things that make this organization better or more fun to watch than their crosstown rivals.

It has been one punch in the chops after another going back to Sportsvision. Until that trend reverses itself, the fans aren't going to break their necks getting to the ballpark...

Excellent point.

Can you give me an example of what other owners in MLB are doing that is fan friendly? I live outside of DC and people hate Peter Angelos from Baltimore too, but he built them an excellent park and got burned on a few big FA deals. So what does an owner have to do short of going broke to please the fans?

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Excellent point.

Can you give me an example of what other owners in MLB are doing that is fan friendly? I live outside of DC and people hate Peter Angelos from Baltimore too, but he built them an excellent park and got burned on a few big FA deals. So what does an owner have to do short of going broke to please the fans?

Hire experience in the front office.

Trade to improve the team when it is in a playoff race - every time.

Make an honest effort to keep FA acquisitions that the team trades for.

Win, Win, Win.

Make the playoffs and advance a couple of times each decade (at least).

Never blame the fans.

Go out of their way to make the ballpark more inviting to those fans - mostly by fielding winning teams, but by having good amenities and an attractive ballpark too.

Never concede to your rivals be they financial (flubbies) or divisional (Tribe).

Get out in the public and don't make an ass out of yourself.

Don't prioritize money, prioritize success on the field and let the money take care of itself.

I am sure there are lots more, but those are an excellent starting point...

hold2dibber
12-19-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Honestly, what has JR done that is fan friendly in the last 23 years?

Name some things that make this organization better or more fun to watch than their crosstown rivals.

:R&R
Did you forget about us?

maurice
12-19-2003, 04:28 PM
Two quick points:

1. Some people are saying that the Trib lacks credibility when talking about the Sox and others say that MLB lacks credibility when talking about profits. Both are right. Both the Trib and the (other) owners have a financial motive to lie, or at least misrepresent the facts. Take what they say with a grain of salt. OTOH, it doesn't mean they're lying about everything. Morrisey's article was biting, but ultimately accurate. IMHO, he and many other columnists have discovered that they can write a good and well-received Sox article with very little work simply by lifting ideas from the thoughtful posters on this site.

2. You can't ignore the increase in the value of a MLB club. This steady increase is in sharp contrast to most major investments and is the very reason that the Sox would sell for several times more than JR's group paid. They are extremely profitable and can afford to increase payroll. A claim that MLB owners are not making money absent proof of operating profits is as false as a claim that nobody makes any money in the stock market unless they get lots of dividends.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Two quick points:
2. You can't ignore the increase in the value of a MLB club. This steady increase is in sharp contrast to most major investments and is the very reason that the Sox would sell for several times more than JR's group paid. They are extremely profitable and can afford to increase payroll. A claim that MLB owners are not making money absent proof of operating profits is as false as a claim that nobody makes any money in the stock market unless they get lots of dividends.

That pretty heavily depends on how the Sox assets are allocated and how liquid those assets are. In addition to that there is a question of net worth. Your business is only worth it's overall value + income - debts and payroll. But that overall value is very rarely disposable income. The value of the Sox can't simply be calculated as is present day value minus it's purchase price.

In your example of capital gains and dividends, you fail to discuss how capital gains are distributed. Is it the smartest business move to consistently take out the capital gains and pay the taxes on it to use it for the ballclub today?

To say that JR is consistently making a killing takes far to many things for granted. I'm not calling JR or any other owner a saint, They would not be where they are today if they were not in it for the money. But how could the owner of a baseball club consistently bet the farm on his team every year and come out ahead? or expect to remain the owner for very long?

maurice
12-19-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Your business is only worth it's overall value + income - debts and payroll. But that overall value is very rarely disposable income. The value of the Sox can't simply be calculated as is present day value minus it's purchase price.

Since the "overall value" is in the neighborhood of ten times the purchase price, the formula would only result in a loss if the team's "debts and payroll" are 100-and-something-million dollars more than its income. That's certainly not the case.

Given JR's experience in finance, I don't think he needs my advice on how to handle his (huge) capital gains.

how could the owner of a baseball club consistently bet the farm on his team every year and come out ahead?

I agree that he's not obligated to "bet the farm" every year, or even this year. I have, however, argued elsewhere that the Sox should increase payroll another 15% for 2004 only in response to the cubs success in 2003 (lots of payroll comes off the books in 2005) . . . but that's a discussion for another thread.

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Since the "overall value" is in the neighborhood of ten times the purchase price, the formula would only result in a loss if the team's "debts and payroll" are 100-and-something-million dollars more than its income. That's certainly not the case.

Given JR's experience in finance, I don't think he needs my advice on how to handle his (huge) capital gains.

He obviously does not need mine either. But that is like saying that because your house is worth $600,000 and you bought it for $200,000 that you have $400,000 to spend. It's not quite that simple.

Value does not equal spendable cash.

Baby Fisk
12-19-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Hire experience in the front office.

Trade to improve the team when it is in a playoff race - every time.

Make an honest effort to keep FA acquisitions that the team trades for.

Win, Win, Win.

Make the playoffs and advance a couple of times each decade (at least).

Never blame the fans.

Go out of their way to make the ballpark more inviting to those fans - mostly by fielding winning teams, but by having good amenities and an attractive ballpark too.

Never concede to your rivals be they financial (flubbies) or divisional (Tribe).

Get out in the public and don't make an ass out of yourself.

Don't prioritize money, prioritize success on the field and let the money take care of itself.

I am sure there are lots more, but those are an excellent starting point...
But Voodoo, why is this so hard to do?!?! :(:

maurice
12-19-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
He obviously does not need mine either. But that is like saying that because your house is worth $600,000 and you bought it for $200,000 that you have $400,000 to spend. It's not quite that simple. Value does not equal spendable cash.

It can, if you're savy in finance, like JR. Using your example, even a finance novice would have very little difficulty turning the $400,000+ in home equity into tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in cash at a pretty darn low interest rate.

Again, it wouldn't be possible to do this annualy, but it would actually be pretty easy to do it one time (though I'm not sure it's even necessary), increase payroll another 15%, and then get the money back in 2005 . . . either through increased profits (if the team goes to the playoffs) or decreased payroll (if they bust and rebuild).

I'm afraid we're getting far afield from the topic of the thread, and I've gotta run. Happy Friday.

:gulp:

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Don't prioritize money, prioritize success on the field and let the money take care of itself.

This is not something a capitalist understands. You don't get to be the owner of a MLB franchise by "letting it ride"

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
But Voodoo, why is this so hard to do?!?! :(:

It isn't just ask teams that consistently make the playoffs or have built a strong fanbase in the past decade or two (Mariners, Tribe, flubbies, etc.)

This is not something a capitalist understands. You don't get to be the owner of a MLB franchise by "letting it ride"

You are dead wrong. Building for end product quality is the single best way to make money long term. Constantly trying to do things on the cheap and doing just enough to stay liquid, solvent and make whatever profit you can is a sure way to stay in just those straights.

Think of your favorite restaurants, musicians, movies, plays and other forms of entertainment. The ones you like the best are the ones that give you best value for your entertainment dollar. JR is competing with the Joliet Jackhammers, not the rest of MLB.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 05:28 PM
You are dead wrong. Building for end product quality is the single best way to make money long term. Constantly trying to do things on the cheap and doing just enough to stay liquid, solvent and make whatever profit you can is a sure way to stay in just those straights.

I completely disagree with that. Some of the biggest companies in America produce crap products or just try to sell at the lowest price possible. McDonald's, Wal*Mart just to name 2 of them. You wouldn't catch me dead in either of those places.

Baby Fisk
12-19-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It isn't just ask teams that consistently make the playoffs or have built a strong fanbase in the past decade or two (Mariners, Tribe, flubbies, etc.)
And yet, we are trapped in JR's alternate universe where right is wrong and down is up.
Once -- JUST ONCE -- I'd like to wear my Sox jacket and have people look at me with sneers of hate instead of smiles of pity.
[sigh........] :gulp:

FanOf14
12-19-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
And yet, we are trapped in JR's alternate universe where right is wrong and down is up.
Once -- JUST ONCE -- I'd like to wear my Sox jacket and have people look at me with sneers of hate instead of smiles of pity.
[sigh........] :gulp:

I know what you are saying. The funny thing is I've been wearing my jacket all winter and I am constantly complomented on it - it's one of the jackets based on the 1917 uniforms they donned on Sundays in 2001 (I think it was in 2001 anyways). Maybe they don't realize it's a White Sox jacket... :?:

Baby Fisk
12-19-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
I know what you are saying. The funny thing is I've been wearing my jacket all winter and I am constantly complomented on it - it's one of the jackets based on the 1917 uniforms they donned on Sundays in 2001 (I think it was in 2001 anyways). Maybe they don't realize it's a White Sox jacket... :?:
Mine is one of the current black dugout jackets. It gets loads of compliments for being an awesome jacket, but what it represents draws out the pity. Here in Toronto, the three most visible team wear are:

--Yankees
--Carmines
--Palehose

The Jays are a non-entity and will have hideously ugly new unies next year. Home caps in grey?! Sad.

FanOf14
12-19-2003, 05:48 PM
It sure does bring out the pity looks from some. Sorry 'bout the misspelled 'complomented.' (I know it should be complimented...finger slipped from 'i' to 'o.' :D: )

StillMissOzzie
12-19-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
So basically you want the sports sections to be a bunch of subjective, non-fact driven, rumor mills.

I'd rather be informed than entertained, but that's just me.

With all due respect, every newspaper has both their just-the-facts pieces and their opinion pieces. The sports section is no different. I like both, and then I can make up my own mind.

SMO
:gulp:

hold2dibber
12-19-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I completely disagree with that. Some of the biggest companies in America produce crap products or just try to sell at the lowest price possible. McDonald's, Wal*Mart just to name 2 of them. You wouldn't catch me dead in either of those places.

No - those companies produce crap products AND try to sell at the lowest price possible. That won't work for the Sox - it might work for Wal-Mart (or the Kane County Cougars) but not for the Sox.

If you don't think that investing the money to become a consistent winner is what will turn this franchise around, than what do you think they should do? What they're doing right now isn't working - they (apparently) just break even or lose money on an annual basis (if you're to believe JR) and they don't win. As a result, the fan base is dying, the casual fans are flocking to the Cubs, and the Sox are in a tailspin.

If doing whatever it takes to produce a quality team isn't the answer, than what is?

Blueprint1
12-19-2003, 06:23 PM
I don't understand the whole thing about the upper deck. I thought that was just unneeded in the article. I think this article was just all about bashing the sox.

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
I don't understand the whole thing about the upper deck. I thought that was just unneeded in the article. I think this article was just all about bashing the sox.

He writes for the Tribune, this is to be expected. Funny they don't talk about the seats at Wrigley that cost $35 and are directly behind poles. Funny also how the Tribune sports section completely avoided that scalping issue.

hold2dibber
12-19-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
I don't understand the whole thing about the upper deck. I thought that was just unneeded in the article. I think this article was just all about bashing the sox.

I thought the article was right on the money except for the b.s. about the upper deck. That was nonsense and entirely unwarranted.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2003, 06:29 PM
Here's an example of an owner doing something fan friendly. One of the first things the new owner of the Angels did was reduce concession prices. Supposedly he said 'do we really have to charge seven dollars for a beer?'

Then he went out and raised the Angels payroll to right now about 80 million.

Lip

voodoochile
12-19-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I completely disagree with that. Some of the biggest companies in America produce crap products or just try to sell at the lowest price possible. McDonald's, Wal*Mart just to name 2 of them. You wouldn't catch me dead in either of those places.

For the money, they give value or they wouldn't stay in business.

But, you make my point for me. In most cases, cheaper is not better from the consumer's viewpoint.

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Here's an example of an owner doing something fan friendly. One of the first things the new owner of the Angels did was reduce concession prices. Supposedly he said 'do we really have to charge seven dollars for a beer?'

Then he went out and raised the Angels payroll to right now about 80 million.

Lip

It was do we have to charge 9 dollars for a beer? He lowered it to 7.50

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 06:49 PM
But, you make my point for me. In most cases, cheaper is not better from the consumer's viewpoint.

Not at all. Even though I wouldn't give a dime to those places, they are still Mega billion dollar corporations raking in tons of dough from others that go there.

rdivaldi
12-19-2003, 06:51 PM
If you don't think the article wasn't a transparent piece of junk to slam on the Sox, just look at the title of the article.

When Sox get it, they only get it wrong

Psychological warfare gentlemen...

roofshot87
12-19-2003, 06:58 PM
Should there be some kind of a tomato award?

Baby Fisk
12-19-2003, 07:01 PM
Hurray! Everyone's in such a rage no one noticed.

:tomatoaward

soxfan26
12-19-2003, 07:15 PM
That one really did go way off subject. Even though it was a good discussion IMO. Thanks VC, Lip, and rdivaldi.

I have little left to say on this though. I think those of us that agree will do that and hopefully the rest of us agree to differ.

I read Daver's article. It was pretty thorough, but he uses a lot of assumptions. I know it's not far to criticize him for this because he could not get the real data even if he wanted to. But it just proves how much we don't know.

I don't have all my faith in JR's regime by any means. I just have not been completely convinced he is the antichrist yet.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-19-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
.... I wish a trillionare would ride in on his white horse and save the organization.

Screw that. I don't care if Houdini flies in on a magic carpet to buy the Sox. As long as the new owner wins a championship, he is better than the last 86 years worth combined.

I know for fact there are at least 20 other baseball owners who know how to win championships better than Reinsdorf. He is the best owner in Chicago. Talk about the world's tallest midget...

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Thanks for the link, and for joining in the discussion.

By that report on ESPN, the Sox revenue in 2001 was $60.99m

I just found thier 2002 payroll (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/04/03/salaries_white.sox_ap/) to be $57.29m

So that leaves JR with a net profit of 3.7m, assuming that it was not used for another team related expense that does not show up.

It boild down to weather or not you think the owner is responsible for dipping into his own money, or taking no pay in order to field a winning team.

This is before I've read Daver's article, but it seems to me in this quick example it is just as likely that JR lost money from '01-'02

What are the costs for running a minor league system? Do bonuses paid to draft picks count toward the payroll figure? How much do the teams have to put in the pension fund and spend on other benefits? What are the costs of travel for the season? What is the cost for salary and benefits to non uniform personnel?What about payroll taxes that all employers pay? Before people start thinking Reinsdorf makes $30-40 million a year, they should consider these questions which weren't covered in the article.

Daver
12-19-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
What are the costs for running a minor league system? Do bonuses paid to draft picks count toward the payroll figure? How much do the teams have to put in the pension fund and spend on other benefits? What are the costs of travel for the season? What is the cost for salary and benefits to non uniform personnel?What about payroll taxes that all employers pay? Before people start thinking Reinsdorf makes $30-40 million a year, they should consider these questions which weren't covered in the article.

Most of those questions can be answered by the MLB books that Bud Selig presented to the folks on Capitol hill,just before he was threatened with being charged of perjury and then laughed off the stand.

TornLabrum
12-19-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Then direct your energy where it will do some good. Let JR know that you don't accept his actions via letters, calls, e-mails and with your wallet.

It isn't the Trib's fault that JR has built himself an expensive (by his standards) average ball club and won't put out the money to try and get them over the hump in an exceedingly average division.

It isn't like the Twins and Royals are unbeatable, but the Sox would rather try and slide by them on the cheap then to spend the money to put the team in the driver's seat.

Even if they do manage to win the ALC, does anyone think this team as currently constructed can win the WS? Man have I got some great property 10 miles due east of downtown to show you and it's really really cheap...

Send envelopes full of straws to JR. Let him know that we know the Sox are going to SUCK in 2004.

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Most of those questions can be answered by the MLB books that Bud Selig presented to the folks on Capitol hill,just before he was threatened with being charged of perjury and then laughed off the stand.

Well you threw some figures out in your article but you didn't mention some pretty big expenses. The FICA taxes alone are huge. The travel isn't cheap, nor is running a minor league system. The MLBPA pension plan is the greatest pension plan in the world. I'm sure the teams are required to contribute significantly to it.

Daver
12-19-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Well you threw some figures out in your article but you didn't mention some pretty big expenses. The FICA taxes alone are huge. The travel isn't cheap, nor is running a minor league system. The MLBPA pension plan is the greatest pension plan in the world. I'm sure the teams are required to contribute significantly to it.

I didn't mention them for two reasons,one,I was writing an article based on ballpark revenue,not expenses,and two,those numbers will never be known,and I cannot speculate on anything that I have nothing to base my speculation on.I think I said that quite clearly in the article itself.

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I didn't mention them for two reasons,one,I was writing an article based on ballpark revenue,not expenses,and two,those numbers will never be known,and I cannot speculate on anything that I have nothing to base my speculation on.I think I said that quite clearly in the article itself.

That's fine, but you say ownership is making money. That is also speculation. I did think 1,000,000 cars was pretty high by the way. I'd say no more than 600,000.

Daver
12-19-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
That's fine, but you say ownership is making money. That is also speculation. I did think 1,000,000 cars was pretty high by the way. I'd say no more than 600,000.

I admitted it was high,but I also lowballed the percentage to compensate for that,I would bet the percentage is a lot better than fifty percent,I would peg it more at eighty percent.I consider the discrepency a wash.

The point I was making is based on what I speculated the ballpark alone brings in enough to cover the payroll,without ever taking any other revenue sources into the equation.My speculation is that unless they are losing money on their TV and radio broadcasting rights they are making money.I have heard rumors that the Sox TV deal is worth 40 Mil annually,I did not speculate on that because I have no way of proving or disproving it,but if it is true that jacks the total dollars I speculated on to 134 mil a season,not including ballpark advertising revenue and shared revenue from liscenseing aggreements,as well as profit sharing from MLB itself.

I could probably take some guesses on the shared revenue,as well as what they are getting in liscensed merchandise and advertising,but what is the point? There is a faction out that has bought Bud Selig's line that teams do not make money,and since MLB will make none of the numbers available they think we should accept it as truth,I see otherwise.

dickallen15
12-19-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I admitted it was high,but I also lowballed the percentage to compensate for that,I would bet the percentage is a lot better than fifty percent,I would peg it more at eighty percent.I consider the discrepency a wash.

The point I was making is based on what I speculated the ballpark alone brings in enough to cover the payroll,without ever taking any other revenue sources into the equation.My speculation is that unless they are losing money on their TV and radio broadcasting rights they are making money.I have heard rumors that the Sox TV deal is worth 40 Mil annually,I did not speculate on that because I have no way of proving or disproving it,but if it is true that jacks the total dollars I speculated on to 134 mil a season,not including ballpark advertising revenue and shared revenue from liscenseing aggreements,as well as profit sharing from MLB itself.

I could probably take some guesses on the shared revenue,as well as what they are getting in liscensed merchandise and advertising,but what is the point? There is a faction out that has bought Bud Selig's line that teams do not make money,and since MLB will make none of the numbers available they think we should accept it as truth,I see otherwise.


I don't think its anywhere near the $40 million mark for broadcasting, but it is high enough where they actually do pay into the revenue sharing pot. I just did a web search, and a site had it pegged at $30 million.

Daver
12-19-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I don't think its anywhere near the $40 million mark for broadcasting, but it is high enough where they actually do pay into the revenue sharing pot. I just did a web search, and a site had it pegged at $30 million.

I got that number from a friend that is an exec in Chicago TV,and it does not include what he thinks is the 7 mil they get from radio broadcasting when you include the money they are getting from the MLB pay to listen on line deal.

joecrede
12-19-2003, 10:09 PM
I'd like to see White Sox revenues as compared to the rest of teams in MLB.

Daver
12-19-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I'd like to see White Sox revenues as compared to the rest of teams in MLB.

Call Bud Selig.